TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX.

Introduction Control of Administrative Action Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies Administrative Procedure Judicial Review of Administrative Decision Modes of Judicial Review Extent of Judicial Review Enforcement of Agency Action PART I. INTRODUCTION

Procedure PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS minimum requirement is the

Factors which gave rise to admin. agencies 1) growing complexity of modern life - as society gets more complex, there are more things to regulate 2) the multiplication of the subject of governmental regulation 3) the increased difficulty of administering the law Constitutional status of admin. agencies the admin. agency does not strictly belong to one branch. The agency does not constitute a 4th branch of government because the constitutional scheme (separation of powers) only allows 3 branches of government.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - that branch of public law dealing with the doctrines and principles governing the powers and procedures of administrative agencies including especially judicial review of administrative action. An ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY is any governmental authority other than a court or legislative body performing rule-making or adjudicatory functions. AGENCY includes: any department, bureau, office, commission, authority or officer of the National Government authorized by law or executive order to make rules, issue licenses, grant rights or privileges, and adjudicate cases; government corporations with respect to function regulating private right, privilege, or occupation or business;

Role of Admin. Agencies Residual Powers the powers given to the three branches spill over because of the 3 shortfalls. There is a need for a body which would act as a catching mechanism, otherwise, the three branches would collapse. The AA supports the trichotomy of powers.

How do these agencies come into being? a) by statute b) by the constitution c) by Executive orders - usually fact-finding agencies CREATED BY CONGRESS 1. can be modified by congress 2. may be altered or abolished CREATED BY THE CONSTITUTION 1. perform more sensitive functions 2. underscoring the independence of the agency thus, insulate it from political pressure

officials in the exercise of disciplinary power as provided by law. (Sec. 2 (1), Book VII, Admin Code of 1987) Powers of an administrative agency a) rule-making b) adjudicatory c) licensing (permits) d) price/rate-fixing e) implementing/executory

The Chief Executive exercises CONTROL over agencies and offices which perform rule-making / adjudicatory functions. If the agency is created by Congress consider the law that created it. If the law is silent as to the control which the President may exercise, the President can only SUPERVISE, i.e., to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed.

power to oversee

A. Legislative Control Ways of exercising control by Congress a) Abolition isnt effective because the admin. agencies are needed. b) Appropriation isnt effective since appropriations are always given. If no appropriation is given, the public would suffer. c) Investigatory effective only as an aid in legislation and cannot serve the need for constant regulation d) Prescription of legislative standards ineffective because the standards should be flexible and those who make the standards lack the expertise. The standards must be EFFECTIVE, SUFFICIENT. Most of the time, Congress is not definite because of (a) varying conditions and (b) differences in the need for regulation of minimum procedural

Why are administrative agencies necessary? Administrative agencies are necessary due to the inadequacies of the executivelegislative-judicial trichotomy. The 3 great branches of government lack: (1) time; (2) expertise; and (3) organizational aptitude for governmental supervision.

The doctrine of separation of powers: To prevent absolutism. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, The Supreme Court cannot assume the administrative function of supervisory control over executive officials. In Noblejas v. Teehankee (1963), the Supreme Court struck down Noblejas claim that the Commissioner of Land Registration, being entitled to the same compensation, emoluments & privileges as a CFI judge, can only be investigated and suspended in the same manner, and not by the Secretary of Justice.) Members of the Supreme Court cannot sit as a board of arbitrators. (Manila Electric Co. v. Pasay Transpo, 1932) A judge cannot become a member of a provincial committee on justice which performs administrative functions. (In Re: Rodolfo U. Manzano (1988) PART II. CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION CONTROL the power to change, modify, alter decisions of subordinates SUPERVISION

e) Prescription requirements

There should be a shift to Administrative standards which allows the agencies to come up with the standards themselves.

This can be effected in these ways : 1) modify the doctrine 2) procedural due process Congress can prescribe minimum procedural requirements which have a general applicability to all agencies. But even with this, there are sill problems, namely; 1) Agencies are not bound by the technical rules of procedure 2) agencies need flexibility to act These minimum procedural requirements may be found in Book 7 of the Admin. Code of 1987.

Substantial evidence - such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion B. Executive Control Executive power is vested in the President (Art. VII, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution) RULE: The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. (Art. VII, Sec. 17, 1987 Constitution) EXCEPTIONS: In the case of agencies created by the legislature (e.g. NLRC, BIR, LTFRB), one must check the enabling law regarding Congress intention regarding this. If the law is silent, the President cannot exercise control but merely supervision. However, in cases involving agencies under the executive branch, the President has control.

PART III. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES A. Legislative Functions 1. Non-Delegation Doctrine theoretically puts a check on the legislature from abdicating its duty by delegating its power to make law. This is a corollary to the doctrine of Separation of Powers. the later attitude of the SC is more liberal and is in favor of sustaining the validity of the delegation. Courts have realized the necessity of delegation of powers - broad or vague standards are sufficient

C. Judicial Control Judicial review of administrative actions D. Ombudsman Investigates and prosecutes All elective and appointive officials, including cabinet members, GOCCs and local government are within his jurisdiction. Those who may be removed only by impeachment are not within his jurisdiction The Ombudsman may not veto or revise an exercise of judgment or discretion by an agency or officer upon whom that judgment or discretion is lawfully vested, esp. where the matter involves basically technical matters coming under the special technical knowledge and training of the agency / officer. (Concerned Officials of MWSS v. Vasquez (1995), where the Ombudsman was held to have interfered with a bid-andaward contract.) The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to initiate an investigation into the alleged delay in the disposition of a judicial case. It is the Supreme Court which has administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. (Dolalas v. Office of the Ombudsman, 1996)

1. Policies - limits, boundaries, complete in itself, leaves nothing to the discretion; may be in another statute (Chiongbian v. Orbos) 2. Standards - express or implied (Edu v. Ericta); written administrative standards (White v. Roughton) What are the matters that Congress cannot delegate? Creation of municipalities (Pelaez v. AuditorGeneral) Imposition of criminal penalties (US v. Barrias) Designation of a particular act as a crime (People v. Maceren) Creation of standards on the part of the agency

Requisites for a valid delegation (Pelaez v. Auditor General) a) the law must be complete in itself; must set forth a policy to be executed b) must fix a standard, the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable, to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. The standard may be express or implied (Edu v. Ericta) The standard does not have to be found in the law being challenged. It may be embodied in other statutes on the same

subject matter as that of the challenged legislation. [Chongbian v. Orbos (1995). Here, the challenged law was the ARMM Organic Act. The standard was found in the Reorganization Act.] Examples of sufficient standards include: Assumption by Labor Minister over strikes affecting national interest (Free Telephone Workers Union v. Minister of Labor and Employment, 1981) Reorganization of administrative regions in ARMM (Chiongbian v. Orbos, 1995) Standard may be implied from other laws, e.g. RA 5435 (simplicity, economy, efficiency) Fixing of rates by National Telecommunications Commission (Philcomsat v. Alcuaz, 1989) The standards used were public safety, public interest, reasonable feasibility and reasonable rates (case to case basis) WON rate-fixing is legislative or quasijudicial

In

Santiago v. COMELEC, RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. COMELEC resolution is void as there are no standards at all, no legislative policy. In Panama Refining Co. v, Ryan, for subordinate rules to be valid, such must be within prescribed limits of the statute creating or granting such authority. In A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., the legislature cannot make a sweeping delegation of legislative power. Permissible Delegation The Legislature must establish the standard; AAs only to make subordinate rules Ascertainment of fact (Lovina v. Moreno) Filling in of details (Alegre v. Collector of Customs) Administrative Rule making Administrative rule-making or subordinate legislation

2.

a. b.

3. Legislative No notice and hearing required unless the law requires Quasi-judicial Notice and hearing required To be able to present evidence and prove the possible adverse effects on its financial viability

Valid as long as germane, consistent, implements the law Normative and prescriptive in character has the force and effect of law; affects substantive rights must not go beyond prescribed by the law. General in application INNOVATIONS IN BOOK VII 1) date of effectivity : 15 days after filing with UP Law Center - publication - submit to UP Law Center a) Quarter bulletin b) up-to-date codification EO 200 allowed publication I na newspaper of general circulation Art. 2 NCC - 15 days after publication in the OG Adm. Code - 15 days after filing the standards

2) Public Participation (Sec. 9)

publish proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit views. What is sad is the law uses the phrase, As far as practicable makes it look like its not mandatory. Can be an excuse.

power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of the law (Land Bank of the Phil. v. CA) Publication and effectivity

Public Participation To make a determination of facts/evidence 1) formal - trial type procedure 2) informal - more desirable and more effective - public hearings, presentation of papers and memo, resolutions, workshops, conferences, seminars, dialogues) - even more specific

Every agency to file with the UP Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule adopted by it. (Bk. VII, Sec. 3) Date of effectivity of rule: 15 days from the date of filing (Bk. VII, Sec. 4) EXCEPTIONS: 1. different date is fixed by law or specified in the rule 2. in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety and welfare, Publication is indispensable Publication essential especially if general in character Rule on publication of administrative issuances different from the Taada ruling Tanada ruling: Publication in O.G. or newspaper of general circulation is required for effectivity of administrative rules and regulations. What need not be published: 1. interpretative regulations 2. internal regulations ( regulating only personnel of agency 3. letters of instructions issued by administrative superior to their subordinates In the Admin Code of 1987: Filing of copy of regulations is sufficient for effectivity

Rate Fixing

2 weeks before rate fixing, 1st hearing is MANDATORY refers to ALL RATES Two ideas involving rate-fixing 1) proposed rate is published 2) must have public hearing

Problem with not following requirements - aggrieved party can always can go to court - the rate can be voided Rule-making - an agency process for the formulation, amendment or repeal of rule. Limits on rule-making power: a. authorized by law (Olsen v. Aldanese) b. must not amend the law (Syman v. Jacinto) c. must not define a criminal act (People v. Maceren) d. must be germane to the purpose of the law which it was meant to implement (Toledo v. CSC) e. must not restrict, expand, diminish law (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. CA; Land Bank v. CA; GMCR v. Bell Telecoms) f. action of the AA to be set aside if there is an error of law, a grave abuse of

Penal Regulations must be published in full text (Sec. 6 (2), Book 7, Admin Code) If a rule is penal in character, it is required that the rule is published before it takes effect. (People v. Que Po Lay) the law itself must so declare the act as punishable penal statutes exclusive domain of the legislature, cannot be delegated In People v. Maceren, it was held that "Administrative rules and regulations cannot

amend or modify or expand the law by including, prohibiting or punishing certain acts which the law does not even define as a criminal act." Interpretative rules interprets the law enacted by the legislative does not and cannot control decisions as to the proper construction of the statute; not binding but generally or in particular circumstances it is given great weight and has a very persuasive influence on the Court Interpretative Rule can be found erroneous by the successor (Hilado v. Collector of Internal Revenue) Administrative interpretation merely advisory (Victorias v. SSC) Wrong construction of the law cannot give rise to a vested right. (Hilado v. CIR) Action of the AA will be set aside if there was error of law, or abuse of power, or lack of jurisdiction, or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of a legislative enactment. (Peralta v. CSC) The power to hear a case can be delegated, but not the power to decide. (American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents, 1975) The power to decide can be delegated provided that the power to delegate such function was not withheld expressly or impliedly. (Realty Exchange v. Sendino, 1994, where the issue was whether the HLURB could split itself into divisions when hearing cases instead of meeting en banc.) NOTE: Is it not implied from the fact that the Board was constituted as a collegial body that they were meant to decide as a collegial body? (Hence an implied prohibition on the delegation of quasi-judicial functions.)

AA to publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. (Bk. VII Sec 9(1)) To be valid, proposed rates must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 2 weeks before the first hearing thereon (Bk. VII, Sec 9(2)). Function delegated to AAs because the legislature has not the time, the knowledge nor the means necessary to handle the matter efficiently. Need for dispatch, for flexibility and for technical know-how better met by AAs. Legislative Quasi-judicial Rate directed only at 1 entity Absolutely necessary

Extent of applicabi -lity Notice & hearing

Rate applies to all May be dispensed with unless the law provides otherwise

PSC not authorized to delegate power to fix rates to a common carrier or other public service. Power to fix rates, being a delegated power cannot be delegated further (Panay Autobus v. Philippine Railway) Rate-fixing must be exercised by the agency directly. The power to fix rates, which is a delegated power, cannot be delegated further (KMU v. Garcia)

Principle on rate fixing and requirement of notice and hearing if the rate to be fixed applies to all utilities in general --- LEGISLATIVE in character Notice and hearing may be dispensed with unless the law requires otherwise.

Fixing of Rates, Wages and Prices A rate is any charge to the public for a service open to all and upon the same terms, including individual or joint rates, tolls, classification or schedules thereof, as well as communication, mileage, kilometreage and other special rates which shall be imposed by law or regulation to be observed and followed by any person. (Sec. 2 (3), Book VII, Admin Code)

If the rate to be fixed applies to one entity -QUASI-JUDICIAL in character notice and hearing required. (Vigan Electric v. PSC; Philcomsat v. Alcuaz)

Licensing Function Licensing includes agency process involving grant, renewal, denial, revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, limitation, amendment, modification or conditioning of a license. (GR-DR-SAMC) License includes the whole or any part of any agency permit, certificate, passport, clearance, approval, registration, charter, membership, statutory exemption or other form of permission, or regulation of the exercise of a right or privilege. (PCPCARCM-SPR) When the grant, renewal, denial or cancellation of a license is required to be preceded by notice and hearing, it cannot be withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled without notice and hearing (Sec 17(1), Bk, VII) no license may be withdrawn, suspended, revoked or annulled without notice and hearing (Sec 17(2), Bk VII) EXCEPTIONS: 1. in cases of willful violation of pertinent laws, rules and regulations 2. when public security, health or safety require otherwise Where the licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license, the existing license shall not expire until the application shall have been finally determined by the agency. (Sec. 18, Bk, VII) A license is always revocable. (Gonzalo Sy Trading)

2. demand is not too indefinite subpoena duces tecum 3. info is reasonably relevant (Evangelista v. Jarencio) rationale: power to adjudicate will be rendered inutile if cant subpoena Contempt Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to cite for contempt? No. Power must be expressly granted in the agencys charter (ex. PD 902-A creating the SEC) If no law, must invoke the aid of RTC Rationale: power to punish for contempt inherently judicial The power to cite for contempt can only be used in connection with judicial and quasijudicial functions and with ministerial functions. (Guevara v. COMELEC)

2. Warrants of Arrest, Administrative Searches Can administrative agencies issue warrants of arrest? No. In Salazar v. Achacoso, it was held that under the 1987 Constitution only a judge may issue search or arrest warrants. EXCEPTION: in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens following a FINAL ORDER OF DEPORTATION, for the purpose of deportation

In Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, the two ways of deporting are through the: a.) Commissioner of Immigration under Sec 37 of CA 618 b.) President after due investigation pursuant to Sec 69 of Revised Administrative Code. but no grounds needed has sole discretion under international law

B. Judicial Functions 1. Power to issue subpoena and declare contempt Subpoena Do all agencies with quasi-judicial functions have the power to issue subpoena? Yes. As long as in exercise of quasijudicial even if charter is silent. Power is vested in the AA in the Admin Code (see Sec 13 Bk VII)

Can immigration authorities issue warrants of arrest against undesirable aliens? YES, but only if issuance is pursuant to a final order of deportation. Immigration authorities cannot issue warrants for purposes of investigation, as the Constitution provides that only judges can

Test for valid enforcement of subpoena: 1. w/in authority of the agency ( expressly authorized by law )

issue warrants to determine probable cause. (Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 1963) Note that the Constitution does not distinguish between warrants in a criminal case and administrative warrants in administrative proceedings. 3. Imposition of fines and penalties Do agencies have the power to impose fines and penalties? Yes. In the case of Oceanic Steam Navigation v. Stranahan, the Court laid down the tests for the validity of imposition of fines

Test for validity of imposition: 1. subject matter is within the control of Congress 2. penalty is administrative or civil and not criminal which would involve deprrvation of property 3. power must be expressly conferred to an administrative agency; power cannot be exercised by implication The fixing of penalties for criminal offense is the exercise of legislative power which cannot be delegated to a subordinate authority. (U.S. v. Barrios)

4. What is moral, educational or amusing (Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 1914) 5. Adequate and efficient instruction (PACU v. Secretary, 1955) 6. Sound and reasonable discretion (implied standard) (Wisconsin Inspection Bureau v. Whitman, 1928) 7. Promotion of simplicity, economy or efficiency (Cervantes v. AuditorGeneral, 1952) 8. Maintenance of monetary stability, promotion of rising level of production and real income (People v. Joliffe, 1959) What is sacrilegious is not a sufficient standard. (Burstyn v. Wilson, 1952)

PART IV. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE A. Rules of Procedure B. Due Process 1. Cardinal Primary Rights As held in Ang Tibay v. CIR, the seven cardinal primary rights are: 1. Right to a hearing 2. Right to have the evidence considered 3. Decision must be supported by evidence 4. Substantial evidence 5. Transparency of records 6. Independent consideration of the judge 7. Decision must reveal relevant issues absence of one of these 7 rights is sufficient to question the proceeding Presence of a party at a trial is not always the essence of due process. All that the law requires is that the parties be given notice of trial, an

C. Judicial Determination of Sufficiency of Standards a reiteration of the non-delegation doctrine attitude of the courts is liberal in sustaining the standards even if such are broad The ff. have been held to be sufficient standards:

1. Interest of law and order (Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 1919) 2. Public interest (People v. Rosenthal, 1939) 3. Justice, equity and substantial merits of the case (International Hardwood v. Pangil Federation, 1940)

opportunity to be heard. (Asprec v. Itchon) The right of a party to confront and cross-examine opposing witnesses is a fundamental right which is part of due process. If without his fault, his right to cross- examine is violated, he is entitled to have the direct examination stricken out. (Bachrach Motors v. CIR) The law, in prescribing a process of appeal to a higher level, contemplates that the reviewing officer is a person different from the one who issued the appealed decision. Otherwise, the review becomes a farce; it is rendered meaningless. (Zambales Chromitev. CA; Anzaldo v. Clave; Rivera v. CSC) Evidence on record must be fully disclosed to the parties. (American Inter-Fashion Corporation v. Office of the President)

b.

When it affects a persons status and liberty (Commissioner of Immigration v. Fernandez)

If administrative action is based on an undisputed fact and not a quasijudicial function, notice and hearing may be dispensed with.

When not required urgent reasons when discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon an undisputed fact (Suntay v. People) if it involves the exercise of discretion and there is no grave abuse of discretion (De Bisschop v. Galang) when rules to govern future conduct of persons or enterprises, unless law provides otherwise (Taxicab Operators of Manila v. Board Of Transportation) in the valid exercise of police power (Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA) Promulgation of

In Matthews v. Eldridge, the U.S. Supreme Court enumerated the 3 factors determining constitutional sufficiency of administrative procedures: 1. private interest that will be affected 2. risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest and probable value of safeguards 3. public interest vis--vis government costs 2. Notice and Hearing No Notice and hearing requirement in case of a mere conference (Equitable v. NLRC) Power to hear may be delegated but not the power to decide (American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents)

3. Form and Judgment

Decision should state: 1. facts 2. issues 3. law (Ang Tibay vs CIR) Normally, this will be followed by the agency to the letter. However, there are times when there is substantial compliance (therefore not violative of due process) It is not necessary that the order make its own discussion of the evidence and the findings of fact if the court is satisfied with the report of the examiner which already contains the discussions of the findings and conclusions. The rule is otherwise when the court disagrees with the findings of the examiner in which case the court

When required a. When law specifically requires notice and hearing (Halili v. PSC; Bautista v. WCC; Equitable Banking Corp v. NLRC)

must specify and discuss the reasons for their dissent. (Indias v. Phil. Iron Mines) The requirement that all decisions should contain a statement of facts and the law on which it is based is only applicable to decisions of courts of record, not to quasi-judicial agencies. However, the due process clause applies with regards to procedural due process. (Valladolid v. Inchiong) If a power to decide is granted to a specific authority, it cant abdicate from this responsibility by delegating the duty to decide the case. It must personally decide such. It can delegate the power to hear but not the power to decide. (American Tobacco v. Director of Patents) The Boards act of dividing itself into divisions of three is valid because under EO 648 the Board can adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its business and perform such functions necessary for the effective accomplishment of its functions. The power to delegate a particular function can be implied from the power of AA to issue rules and regulations necessary to carry out its functions. (Realty Exchange v. Sendino)

of justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies do. (Cario v. CHR) CHR cannot issue cease and desist order since the CHR can only investigate. The power to issue cease and desist order is reserved for quasi-judicial & judicial powers (Simon, Jr. v. CHR) The Bureau of Immigration has the primary jurisdiction or exclusive authority to try and hear cases against an alleged alien. Judicial intervention should be granted only in cases where claim of citizenship is so substantial that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is correct. (Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa) The HLURB has jurisdiction over specific performance, annulment of mortgage and all other matters which pertain to sound real estate practice. (Union Bank v. HLURB) The CAB is authorized by RA 776 to issue temporary operating permit or CPCN. (PAL v. CAB)

D. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings Arising from the same facts The difference in the proceeding (one administrative, the other criminal) is not legal incompatibility but merely physical incompatibility. These 2 proceedings are independent of each other involving different causes of action and therefore can proceed simultaneously. (Galang v. CA) Matters that are material in administrative case are not necessarily relevant in criminal case. There are excuses, defenses and attenuating circumstances which are relevant in an administrative proceeding which are not admissible in trial in crim cases. (Villanos v. Sabido) The trial court had no jurisdiction to order reinstatement since the

C. Jurisdiction Refer to the enabling statute creating the agency, especially its powers and jurisdiction Jurisdiction is created and conferred by law Pendency of a criminal case will not divest the Deportation Board of its jurisdiction over undesirable aliens in a deportation proceeding. (Go Tek v. Deportation Board) The Collector of Customs constitutes a competent tribunal when sitting in forfeiture proceedings. (Dela Fuente v. De Veyra) CHR can only investigate violations of civil-political rights. It cannot try and decide cases as ordinary courts

judgment in a criminal case is limited to acquittal or conviction with accessory penalties. Only the NLRC could have ordered reinstatement with back wages. (PNR v. Domingo) The criminal case for falsification is entirely distinct from the administrative proceedings conducted by the COMELEC against the petitioner although both arose from the same set of facts. The dismissal of the criminal complaint against Tan is not a bar to the administrative proceeding. (Tan v. COMELEC)

A. Factors Affecting Finality of Administrative Decisions 1. Question of constitutionality 2. history of statute 3. nature of problem (question of law or fact) 4. finality of decision (non quieta movere) Silence of Congress should not be interpreted as indicating a legislative intent to preclude judicial review. (Uy v. Palomar)

E. Rules of Evidence AAs not bound by technical rules of evidence but due process must be observed

RATIO: to allow AA to act with speed and flexibility What is the pervasive principle? Technical rules of evidence and procedure do not strictly apply to administrative proceeding, but this does not mean they can disregard certain due process requirements. AAs may act on its own and use methods which may best constitute substantial evidence. (Estate of Buan v. Pambusco) The SC not required to examine the proof de novo. The only function of the SC is to determine WON there is evidence before the Commission upon which its decision might be reasonably be based. (Rizal Light Co. v. Municipality of Rizal) AAs not bound by the strict or technical rules of evidence governing court proceedings. In the broad interest of justice, the ERB may, in any particular manner, except itself from these rules and apply such suitable procedure as shall promote the objectives of the order. (Maceda v. ERB)

GEN RULE: Courts refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken by AA EXCEPTIONS: (1) AA has gone beyond statutory authority (2) AA exercised unconstitutionall powers (3) AA clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty (4) Grave abuse of discretion (5) Decision vitiated by fraud, imposition or mistake (Manuel v. Villena) B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Where law has delineated a procedure by which administrative appeal or remedy could be effected, the same should be followed before recourse to judicial action can be initiated REASONS: 1. legal : law prescribes a procedure 2. practical : to give agency a chance to correct its own error 3. for reasons of comity and convenience

PART V. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

EXCEPTIONS TO RULE 1. purely legal question (Pascual v. Prov. Bd.) 2. patently illegal act - lack of jurisdiction 3. time is of the essence and will result into nullification of claim (Quasha v. Sec; Alzate v. Aldana) 4. would be oppressive and unreasonable (Cipriano v. Marcelino)

5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11.

remedy only persuasive (Corpuz v. Cuaderno) estoppel by laches (Republic (PCGG) v. SB) irreparable damage and injury will be suffered by the party (De Lara v. Clorivel) private land in land case proceedings not a plain, speedy, adequate remedy doctrine of qualified political agency alter ego blatant violation of due process In the case of Republic (PCGG) v. SB, the Court held that failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can take cognizance of the case and try it. In this case, seven years is hardly within "the proper time".

doctrine applies when there is concurrence of jurisdiction (regular court and AA) Courts will not intervene if the question to be resolved is one which requires the expertise of the AA and the legislative intent on the matter is to have uniformity in ruling EXCEPTIONS: 1. not within competence of the AA 2. issue does not require technical expertise of AA

Criteria for the application of the Doctrine as laid down in the Texas and Pacific v. Abilene Case: (1) there is concurrent jurisdiction (2) the agency has the necessary expertise to competently rule on the issues (technical expertise is crucial to resolution) (3) In line with the legislative intent /objectives of the law (e.g. uniform rates) If case requires expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of AA because technical matters or intricate questions of fact are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of the court. Application of the doctrine does not call for the dismissal of the case but only its SUSPENSION till after the matters within the competence of the AA are threshed out and determined. (Industrial Enterprises v. CA)

(i) (ii)

(iii)

(iv)

The rule on non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, being based on sound public policy and considerations, has EXCEPTIONS: where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal amounting to lack of jurisdiction; where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant; and where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice. The Rep. v. SB case falls under (I) and (ii). Jurisdiction or Preliminary

D. Standing to Challenge

C. Primary Resort

LEGAL STANDING means a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the govt. act that is being challenged. (Joya v. PCGG; :Lozada v. Comelec; Kilosbayan v. Guingona) Types of Standing: 1. provided by law 2. taxpayers' suit 3. class suit 4. suit as members of the Congress If the law specifies in an exclusive manner as to who may appeal those who are not included have no personality to sue. (Ursal v VTA; Acting Collector v. CTA) One having no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an action. (Joya v. PCGG) The issue of standing is a procedural technicality which may be waived if the issue of is of transcendental importance to the public. (Kilosbayan v. Guingona) The Court differentiated concepts of standing and real party-in-interest and held that Kilosbayan is not a real party in interest because it was not a party to the contract. (Kilosbayan v. Morato)

the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. (3) it must be likely as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. (Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife) E. Ripeness Purpose of the doctrine of ripeness (according to Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner): 1. to prevent courts, thru avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies 2. to protect agencies from judicial interference until decision has been formalized and effect felt in a concrete way or the imminence of the effect is demonstrable 2-fold test (must concur): (1) fitness of the issue for judicial decision (question of law, not policy-making) (2) hardship to the parties of withholding such court action General ripeness consideration tests according to National Automatic Laundry and Cleaning Council v. Shultz: 1. WON there is congressional intent negativing judicial review 2. Possibility of courts entangling themselves in abstract disagreement over administrative policies due to premature adjudication 3. Fitness of issue for judicial determination and hardship to parties of withholding consideration

Tests of standing as laid down in Assn of Data Processing Service Organization v. Camp 1) Test of injury in fact (economic injury) 2) Whether or not arguably in the zone of interest sought to be protected by the statute Three elements of the constitutional minimum requirements of standing: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical (2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not

PART VI. MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW Judicial Review WON it is available is the threshold issue If not available - end of litigation If available - determine the specific mode of review which must be invoked

 A. Provisions of Law Art. 9A, Sec 7, Constitution: Decisions of the COA, COMELEC, and CSC may be brought to the SC on CERTIORARI within 30 days from receipt of copy of decision The constitution uses the word may, meaning review is not mandatory by only discretionary.

Grants CA with exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of 19 AAs. Excludes the NLRC Mentions only one constitutional body: CSC Listing not exclusive - ejusdem generis SC retains the special civil action for certiorari if there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction As to AAs exercising quasi-judicial functions, there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by the statute. (Meralco Securities v. CBAA)

BP 129 Authority of CA to review decisions of quasijudicial agencies is EXCLUSIVE (if such is listed in law or if its charter so indicates) If it is not listed, its decisions can be reviewed by the RTC through the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65

Book VII, Section 25, Administrative Code of 1987 Agency decisions shall be subject to judicial review in accordance with this chapter and applicable laws. (par. 1) WHO MAY SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW: Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by an agency decision. (par.2) WHEN TO APPEAL: Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy (par. 4) HOW: File petition for review (par.4) WHERE TO FILE: In the court specified by statute or, in the absence thereof, in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions on venue of the Rules of Court. (par. 6) Petition for Review - question of fact and law Must comply with The time period Docket fees Notice

B. Certiorari Two Kinds of Certiorari 1. Simple or Ordinary (Rule 45) - errors of judgment; questions of law 2. Special Civil Action (Rule 65) - errors of jurisdiction; - SC has original jurisdiction, concurrent with the RTC Purpose: to proceedings nullify or set aside the

Requisites: 1. a) Lack of jurisdiction or b) grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction 2. There is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy 3. Agency or tribunal is performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions C. Prohibition Requisites: 1. Lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion 2. No other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy 3. Agency or tribunal is performing quasijudicial and ministerial functions 4. The act to be enjoined is yet to be performed Purpose To stop or prohibit proceedings from going on

SC Revised Administrative Circular 1-95 (Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Procedure)

 If proceedings are already finished - do not use prohibition as by then it would be moot and academic Unlike certiorari, prohibition is more expansive as it caters to quasi-judicial and purely ministerial duties D. Mandamus Requisites: 1. Prove clear and controlling right - not questionable and not subject to dispute 2. Duty of the person to whom mandamus is directed is MINISTERIAL, not discretionary 3. No plain, speedy, adequate remedy under the ordinary course of law Is it possible to ask for a writ of mandamus against an agency exercising discretionary powers? Yes, when the writ of mandamus is in order to compel the agency to exercise or use its discretion but it will not prescribe the action to be taken by the board/officer (Policarpio v. Phil Veterans Board) If there is a capricious exercise of such discretion, the remedy is CERTIORARI WHEN IS MANDAMUS NOT PROPER: to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public officer (Blanco v. Board of Examiners) 1. to compel issuance of visa (Ng Gioc Liu v. Secretary of Foreign Affairs) 2. to enforce contractual obligations (Province of Pangasinan v. Reparations Commission) 3. where there is no clear legal right as the source of the "right" is not authorized (Cruz v. CA) 4. to compel tax assessment not due (Meralco Securities v. Savellano) E. Declaratory Relief Function: 1. interested under a deed, will, contract or written instrument affected by any statute 2. to determine any question of construction or validity arising from and

for a declaration of his rights, duties thereunder can only be availed of before the breach

Requisites of Declaratory Relief 1. existence of a justiciable controversy capable of determination 2. between persons whose interests are adverse 3. party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy 4. issue is ripe for adjudication Citizenship cannot be declared in an action for declaratory relief. (Azajar v. Ardalles) DR must precede breach so as to avoid multiplicity of suits. (De Borja v. Villadolid) DR not available to a taxpayer who questions his tax liability. (National Dental Supply v. Meer)

F. Habeas Corpus In what cases will habeas corpus pertinent in administrative cases? Deportation cases It is a plain, speedy, adequate remedy to secure release of persons under custody Success of petition depends on the legality of the detention WHC would still issue even if the person is already released if the release is conditional such as when there is surveillance, there is limitation in the place where he can go, etc. Detention is legal if it is reasonable (Mejoff v. Director of Prisons) Bail renders a WHC moot and academic as the bail bond gives him liberty. (Co v. Deporation Board; Lucien Tran Van Nghia v. Liwag) Note though that in Crim Pro we were taught that WHC may still issue despite the granting of bail when there is still effective detention.

G. Injunction as a Provisional Remedy Purpose: 1. To prevent the commission of certain acts complained of

2. Commission or continuance of act complained of would probably work injustice to him 3. Defendant is doing, threatens or about to do an act in violation of petitioner's rights which may render the judgment ineffectve If the plaintiff wins the main case, injunction becomes permanent, if he does not, injunction is dissolved Ancillary remedy to principal action while main action is pending To preserve rights while main action is pending Who issues the injunction The SEC and the RTC are co-equal (Pineda v. Lantin; Phil Pacific Fishing Co. v. Luna)

Question of Fact - reviewable only when not supported by substantial evidence (findings of fact, if supported by substantial evidence, is conclusive on the court) A conclusion drawn from series of facts is a question of law which may be reviewed (Dauan v. Secretary)

B. Question of Law Examples are issue of constitutionality, validity of agency action, and correctness of the interpretation of law Other examples: 1. question of citizenship (Ortua v. Vicente Singson) 2. WON there was a landlord- tenant relationship (Mejia v. Mapa) 3. Questions arising from proper interpretation of the Articles of Incorporation (Japanese War Notes Claimants v. SEC) 4. Existence of an ER-EE relationship (Ysmael v. CIR)

Superior court to an inferior court

Preliminary Mandatory Injunction Commands an act to be done for the purpose of restoring a pre-existing right and to prevent damage Would be issued if: 1. right is clear 2. considerations of relative inconvenience strongly in favor of petitioner 3. there appears to be a willful invasion of petitioner's right and the injury is a continuing one 4. PMI will not create a new relation between the parties

C. Question of Fact GEN RULE: findings of fact of AA, if supported by substantial evidence, is conclusive on the courts EXCEPTIONS: 1. not supported by evidence presented 2. not supported by substantial evidence EXAMPLES: 1. WON thing exists 2. WON event took place 3. Which of 2 conflicting versions is correct SC may not accept AAs findings of fact when the decision was rendered by an almost evenly divided court and that the decision was precisely on the facts as borne out by the evidence. (Gonzales v. Victory Labor Union) When there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is a justification for the courts to set aside the administrative determination reached. (Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board)

H. Suit for Damages as an Indirect Method Even if damage ensues because of acts in excess of authority, damages will not be awarded if such act was (1) done in good faith and (2) with color of title. (Philippine Racing Club v. Bonifacio) PART VII. EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW A. Law - fact distinction Important because of substantial evidence rule (i.e., AA decision, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be reviewed by the court) Questions of Law - always reviewable

Sir Carlota says there is substantial evidence when there is a semblance of reasonableness in your conclusion Substantial evidence does not require you to be sure but merely REASONABLE Court must review the ENTIRE records. Substantial evidence must be taken as a whole - should not be selective in reviewing the case. (Universal Camera Corporation v. NLRB)

1. 2. 3. 4.

previous final judgment rendered by court with jurisdiction must be a judgment on the merits identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action

D. Questions of Discretion If there is GAD, subject to certiorari GAD - Capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, despotic PART VIII. ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION

WRITS OF EXECUTION GENERAL RULE: Agencies performing quasi-judicial functions have the implied power to issue writs of execution. EXCEPTION: If the enabling law expressly provides otherwise If the law is silent, presume that the agency has the power to enforce its decisions emanating from its quasi-judicial powers. (Apolega v. Hizon) If the writ of execution is refused to be implemented, the proper remedy is MANDAMUS because by virtue of the writ of execution, the duty has become ministerial. (Vda. de Corpuz v. the Commanding General of the Philippine Army) CFI and the NLRC are co-equal such that an order even if not directed against the NLRC when it's effect would be to freeze it's executory decision should be nullified. (Ambrosio v. Salvador) The authority to decide cases (quasi-judicial powers) should normally and logically begin to include the grant of authority to enforce and execute the judgment it thus renders, unless the law otherwise provides. (GSIS v. CA)

How are agency enforced? actions going to be

Examine the pertinent provisions of the enabling statute Examples: issue permits, fix wages, summary actions without notice and hearing, ex parte order to cease and desist

RES JUDICATA Does res judicata apply to administrative agencies? Yes, if it is exercising it's QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS (Ipekdjian Merchandising v. CTA) Res judicata is a judicial concept. It does not apply if the exercise is purely administrative Res judicata may not be invoked in purely administrative proceedings. (Nasipit Lumber v. NLRC) Decisions and orders of AAs rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority have, upon their finality, the force and effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res judicata. (Dulay v. Minister of Natural Resources)

Requisites of res judicata: